Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just for the record, I was at the TAC session in Germany and the > issue most definitely did *not* come up.
Then it must have come up at the normal Advisory Council meeting, if there was one. Again, if you read my blog, there was _two_ meetings -- the [usually] semi-annual Advisory Council (Strategic Advisory Council?), and the new TAC (the first being with 2006 April LinuxWorld Boston IIRC). In case you can't find the link, here it is again ... (skip the first 1/3rd of the article) http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/04/business-of-linuxworld.html I believe the split [S]AC/TAC design is how LPI is now approaching the meetings, instead of one, single AC meeting every 6 months. I wasn't in German, and I don't know of other LinuxWorld's (if there were any) where LPI was at, but that's what I understood the split would be from now on. > OTOH, there were all kinds of fun and games regarding an LPIC-3 > »super-guru certification« comprising six speciality exams. > Boy, would I ever hate to redo *that* every two years! Please don't introduce rhetoric and demonize things. That's not only counter-productive and an _abuse_ of the process, but it "drowns out" _legitimate_ comments (e.g., Evan's).** When I was involved with the 2006 April TAC discussion on LPIC-3, the plan as I understood it was that you would _only_ need to pass *2* exams to achieve LPIC-3 certification. There were other discussions as well. E.g., to get a "speciality," you'd only need to have LPIC-2 and pass *1* exam. Or you could combine 2 specializations into the LPIC-3, etc... The idea here was to _maximize_ both marketability as well _avoid_ people taking exams over and over again on the same content. At Level 3, you are definitely getting into specializations, and you can't be too generic or broad. Whatever Matt & co. has come up with is _very_ well _thought_out_, with _extensive_input_. [ **NOTE: E.g., as a former maintainer, that's a _prime_example_ of how to _kill_ a Democratic process like Debian's organization. All it takes is one guy to start the rhetoric and/or demonization and then the 'fits hits the shan' for _weeks_. Don't do it. _Please_, don't do it, okay. Don't proliferate 2 years when it's flat out _wrong_. ] > A lesson from recent political history: ... cut ... Wholly not applicable. Governments are "forced community," everyone _must_ belong. Organizations are not, they are "communities of individual choice." In government, there is _no_ individual choice, you are "stuck" with it. In a free market of multiple organizations to choose from, individual choice is preserved. [ NOTE: Please don't go down that road, especially not looking at and using examples of governments (many European) that focus more on "community rights" than what we Americans are used with "individual rights." I have a choice whether to support LPI or not. If it strays from considering its Alumni first, I'll be the first to put my support elsewhere. ] > As far as the »meritocracy plus executive« approach is concerned, > having a meritocracy is well and good if you're running a free > software project, such as the Linux kernel. Apples-to-oranges comparison. LPI is an organized entity with fiscal aspects, _unlike_ the kernel team. Even the Fedora Project isn't a perfect example, because the board has external (Red Hat) members, but it was the best I could come up with. As far as "other certs," you're talking to a guy that is Linux+ and RHCE certified too. In fact, I'm going to be up for retaking the RHCE within 6 months. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
